To Cardinal Newman said, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

[Peter_J]

TO be deep in World History is to be Agnostic.

To be deep in uncertainly is to cease to not be agnostic.

 

[Peter_J]

An Orthodox church member may say, “To be Catholic is to cease to be a member of the True Church.”

Right. Unlike Protestants who don’t make a true-church claim.

 

[Tomyris]

TO be deep in World History is to be Agnostic.

Once you see that religion is just mankind’s attempt to bring meaning into a meaningless world, you begin to see that all cultures are playing the same song over and over again:

“Listen to Me”
“Shun the Outsiders”
“Authority flows from MY truth”
“Be Civilized as I define it”

If you really believe the world is meaningless, then why are you trying to say something? You cannot really believe the world is meaningless, because then the meaning is “the world is meaningless”. Your statement “the world is meaningless” is inherently contradictory. The statement has meaning, which contradicts itself.

Do you see that?

 

[Son_of_Niall]

TO be deep in World History is to be Agnostic.

Once you see that religion is just mankind’s attempt to bring meaning into a meaningless world, you begin to see that all cultures are playing the same song over and over again:

“Listen to Me”
“Shun the Outsiders”
“Authority flows from MY truth”
“Be Civilized as I define it”

Right.
'Cause atheists NEVER do that.

 

[Tomyris]

Right. Unlike Protestants who don’t make a true-church claim.

You are lumping all Protestants together into one group making one claim.

I believe I am a member of Christ’s Church. I think all Protestants think so, as do Catholics, as do Orthodox. However, I believe anyone who believes in Christ is a member of the true Church. However I am uncertain of what you mean by a “true church claim”. So that may not be a good response.

 

[Peter_J]

You are lumping all Protestants together into one group making one claim.

I believe I am a member of Christ’s Church. I think all Protestants think so, as do Catholics, as do Orthodox. However, I believe anyone who believes in Christ is a member of the true Church. However I am uncertain of what you mean by a “true church claim”. So that may not be a good response.

I mean in the sense that we Catholics claim to be the one true church, and the Orthodox claim to be the one true church.

 

[benhur]

TO be deep in World History is to be Agnostic.

Once you see that religion is just mankind’s attempt to bring meaning into a meaningless world, you begin to see that all cultures are playing the same song over and over again:

“Listen to Me”
“Shun the Outsiders”
“Authority flows from MY truth”
“Be Civilized as I define it”

Hi Bird,

Hey, everybody is selling something, even agnostics and atheists. And they are also trying to make meaning of things, and maybe even of life. That all cultures have religion does not mean they are all false.There is always the possibility of a Real McCoy, and the rest just error in replication, even mutate.

Blessings

 

[ffg]

Hi Mike

I see your questions on the creed again and I get to the understanding that maybe I wasn’t clear. The Creed was not established via the Authority of the Bishop of Rome. It was established via the 3 main leaders set up to lead on basis of faith in separate sees and jurisdictions laid out by the Roman Empire. Meaning asking “it’s interesting that you subscribe to the Creed developed under the 33rd pope (Bishop of Rome, if you like), but don’t find him to have Authority” is rather during the 33rd Bishop of Rome and not under him. So affirming from my side a Creed that was established by a large congregation who from different parts came together on equal footing as this was the church of the time, isn’t a problem for me (us). It doesn’t prove allegiance to Rome, if proves allegiance the findings of the entire council.

I do feel I answered the Luther or a reformation earlier question. I’m not an expert on Arius but I have a good knowledge of Constantine. We know of “Luthers” who happened earlier but we know how they were dealt with. I wouldn’t deny the extreme power and civil influence Rome had in the west until Luther. Luther happened in a different time, and when it happened, the exponential growth thereafter is also a point.

But that’s where I agree. It is still one. I can ask because Eastern Rite is different does that mean 2 (and more for the other different ones). But because they accept the Pope you are one now? How big should the difference be before we would say it’s 2? Christianity is one, we have 2 billion Christians in this world. Believers in Jesus Christ. (I’m pretty sure I’m gonna get numerous posts to this one alone)

I will let you address the final paragraph further before we continue

Take care
Michael

Hi Michael,

I’m confused now about the Creed. You appreciate the meeting that established it with a vote of about 316 Bishops of the Catholic Church, but you are uncomfortable somewhere there.

Also, remember that prior to the Council, there were a few forms of ‘Creed’ used. However what is evident is that the Nicene Creed was heavily influenced by what Bishops were already using in the Apostle’s Creed. (sourced earlier in the side-by-side view of the two)

To clarify for readers, ‘sees’ were not denominations, they were like seats at the table of the Church. Here is a quick and simple look:

ancienthistory.about.com/od/earlychurch/g/apostolicsee.htm

With regard to the last paragraph, I came from the angle of the early heretic because there is always a lot of chatter about what happened to them, but not a lot of thinking about their intent.

I don’t think early heretics were going to bet their necks (call themselves Christian when pressed) against what they knew – how the Apostles died, and they were preaching contrary to the Apostles. (Also remember, early heretics wouldn’t have had the bible in hand)

This next article brings early varying mindsets into play as a bit of a cause for naming of the true Church - ‘Catholic’. Was an interesting read.

[ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm](https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churb3.htm)

What I pulled from it as key: That ‘Roman’ is not used by the Church Herself, it is modern and not necessary. (though I don’t know how modern)

And how coming up with a proper name was necessary in the same way that say ‘Amazon’ doesn’t just call itself ‘Online Market’. It’s distinguishable with ‘Amazon’. 

Here is a snip –

“As mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, it is true that the followers of Christ early became known as "Christians" (cf. Acts 11:26). The name Christian, however, was never commonly applied to the Church herself. In the New Testament itself, the Church is simply called "the Church." There was only one. In that early time there were not yet any break-away bodies substantial enough to be rival claimants of the name and from which the Church might ever have to distinguish herself.

Very early in post-apostolic times, however. the Church did acquire a proper name--and precisely in order to distinguish herself from rival bodies which by then were already beginning to form. The name that the Church acquired when it became necessary for her to have a proper name was the name by which she has been known ever since-the Catholic Church.

The name appears in Christian literature for the first time around the end of the first century. By the time it was written down, it had certainly already been in use, for the indications are that everybody understood exactly what was meant by the name when it was written.”

I’ll try and get back to that #1 we left behind here this week. I think some of our conversation, and some of the others I’ve read, have been good intro’s for the #1.

Take care,

Mike

 

[ffg]

Originally Posted by MichaelP3 View Post
#1
But this is where my problem arises. If the Nicene Creed has the cores, why would one be imperfect if you contain what it says. What I meant with extras. It’s not more to Christianity, it’s just not needed to be a Christian. There are very few Catholic beliefs I would say I personally have a problem with. My problem lies with the necessity attached to it. Honestly and no offence, but reading those parts in the Catechism is like keeping Christ hostage.

I grew up thinking the Catholic Church is so big and they just don’t care about us. And we are the mean ones. After this when I think back, not a single time in Church or Sunday school did we even discuss anything Catholic related. And later I found it’s the Catholic Church that has a problem with us. I honestly don’t have a problem with Catholicism, I have a problem with the problem they have with us. We both profess the essence of Christianity, which is why I don’t feel the need to convert any Catholic, as the core beliefs towards eventual salvation are in both. And I also came to know we have a very different understanding of the word Church, which would provably raise another question. It’s not about saying the Math doesn’t work. Subscribe to the cores and you fall under The Church of Christ. The universal Church. Whether you like to have pink or blue chairs to sit on does not matter.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

Regards and all the best
Michael

Hi Michael,

I wanted to get back to this (#1) because I thought it kind of drove the next question which you do not see often.

We see a lot of debate, but we do not see - ‘Why do Catholics want to talk to us?’.

I think it’s a great question, Why is there an NCR page on this site? Do other similar sites have places for discussion / debate with folks who do not align with their thinking? (I don’t know)

In my experience, the Homily at Mass is almost always on Bible readings. When it is not, typically it’s on finances of the Church (once or twice a year) or a visiting missionary needing help.

There is this call to ‘new evangelization’, which I believe is to target those that might call themselves ‘ex-catholic’, but if that means going up to people and just starting a conversation and linking it back to the truth of the Church, I know I don’t do that.

I rarely talk to folks outside of family about religion.

If I’m supposed to be forward to the people around me about what I write on here, I’m failing in a major way.

Converts often say “we wish someone would have approached us earlier”, but there only certain people in this world with that type of personality.

So though I don’t think Catholics evangelize well, you have a sense that there is this desire of Catholics (or the Catholic Church) to focus on ‘Non-Catholic Christians’ as an ‘opportunity to evangelize’ (for lack of a better term).

Why? - A great question that I would like to open up to all Christians - (I’ll share my thoughts later)

From your (all folks) Point of view - ignoring that most Catholics, and people in general are not as forward off the internet vs. on -

‘Why do Catholics want to talk to ‘Non-Catholic Christians’ if hey - We’re all Christian!?’

I think the answers can go fairly deep and contribute to the title and purpose of the thread.

Take care,

Mike

 

[steve_b]

. We both profess the essence of Christianity, which is why I don’t feel the need to convert any Catholic, as the core beliefs towards eventual salvation are in both. And I also came to know we have a very different understanding of the word Church, which would provably raise another question. It’s not about saying the Math doesn’t work. Subscribe to the cores and you fall under The Church of Christ. The universal Church. Whether you like to have pink or blue chairs to sit on does not matter.

That institution that made that claim and speaks with the authority of God, is the same one that gave us the Nicene Creed.

That would be the Catholic Church. Which Newman ultimately joined

Protestants left the Catholic Church

division has grave consequences

Scripture condemns Division ( διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects,) from that Church is condemned in scripture.

Where is that word used in scripture?

Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions **διχοστασίας **] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. 18. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. 20. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The

and the consequences?

Galatians 5:19-21
19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20. Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, **διχοστασίας **] sects, 21. Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

See that consequence?
M:

This you must understand I can’t agree with and historical context help me to be certain. As I am very comfortable to join The First Church in the form they had. There are too many contradictions

Regards and all the best
Michael

that’s #34

all internal links are operational

Originally Posted by MichaelP3 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*IgnatianPhilo

Can you please tell me where to find or send me these letters to understand your thinking?
*

#10 answered your question. If you answered him could you direct me to your answer? Thanks in advance

He gave all of Ignatius letters

To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
To the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp

In particular, pertaining to the topic, please read

1. 
   *]letter To the Smyrnaeans , ch’s 7, 8 we see what Church he belongs to “in writing”.it’s The Catholic Church
   *]letter To the Philadelphians , ch 3 we see that it’s the Catholic Church then, one is not to be separated from, or they don’t go to heaven. IOW, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation
   
   BTW, for the source of that teaching in #2, look at Romans and Galatians above.
   
   Who was Ignatius?
   
   Ignatius was ordained by apostles. He is a direct disciple of St John the apostle. By the time he writes these letters (~107 a,d,) he’s been bishop of Antioch for 30+ years. Meaning, he was bishop in Antioch before Acts and Revelation were written.

 

[MichaelP3]

That would be the Catholic Church. Which Newman ultimately joined

Protestants left the Catholic Church

division has grave consequences

Scripture condemns Division ( διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / schism / factions /sedition / sects,) from that Church is condemned in scripture.

Where is that word used in scripture?

Romans 16:17-20 (links operational)
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions διχοστασίας ] and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. 18. For they that are such, serve not Christ our Lord, but their own belly; and by pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent. 19. For your obedience is published in every place. I rejoice therefore in you. But I would have you to be wise in good, and simple in evil. 20. And the God of peace crush Satan under your feet speedily. The

and the consequences?

Galatians 5:19-21
19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, 20. Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, διχοστασίας ] sects, 21. Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.

See that consequence?

that’s #34

all internal links are operational

#10 answered your question. If you answered him could you direct me to your answer? Thanks in advance

He gave all of Ignatius letters

To the Ephesians
To the Magnesians
To the Trallians
To the Romans
To the Philadelphians
To the Smyrnaeans
To Polycarp

In particular, pertaining to the topic, please read

1. 
   *]letter To the Smyrnaeans , ch’s 7, 8 we see what Church he belongs to “in writing”.it’s The Catholic Church
   *]letter To the Philadelphians , ch 3 we see that it’s the Catholic Church then, one is not to be separated from, or they don’t go to heaven. IOW, outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation
   
   BTW, for the source of that teaching in #2, look at Romans and Galatians above.
   
   Who was Ignatius?
   
   Ignatius was ordained by apostles. He is a direct disciple of St John the apostle. By the time he writes these letters (~107 a,d,) he’s been bishop of Antioch for 30+ years. Meaning, he was bishop in Antioch before Acts and Revelation were written.

1. 
   Honestly this was almost a year ago and I don’t recall everything. You are welcome to go through it (obviously) but my thoughts could have changed.
   
   I think the one mistake I made there was to refer to Newman in the first place. In the end it became more a discussion on him than the point I was trying to make. Although his quote led me to the point I was rather referring to.

 

[steve_b]

Honestly this was almost a year ago and I don’t recall everything. You are welcome to go through it (obviously) but my thoughts could have changed.

I looked but didn’t find where you responded to him. I could have missed it though.

How have your thoughts changed?
M:

I think the one mistake I made there was to refer to Newman in the first place.

Was it Newman, or was it something he wrote that was the issue?

His essay (which I linked to on the other thread,) was a rather voluminous work.
M:

In the end it became more a discussion on him than the point I was trying to make. Although his quote led me to the point I was rather referring to.

What was the point you were really trying to make?

 

[Contarini]

Since Methodism arose from Anglicanism, the services show a family resemblance. And you will find the Creeds there.

OTOH, since Methodism arose from Anglicanism, I hesitate to generalize.

Your caution is wise. Methodists have an official liturgy in their hymnal but do not have to follow it. The official liturgy calls for some kind of affirmation of faith, and there are a number of possibilities. The Apostles’ Creed is the traditional one (for Methodists) and the one most often used, but they may also use the Nicene Creed or one of a number of modern statements of faith. And some congregations may choose not to have one at all.

A good friend of mine made an effort at the last General Conference to get the Nicene Creed officially added to the doctrinal standards of the UMC.

 

[Contarini]

Honestly this was almost a year ago and I don’t recall everything. You are welcome to go through it (obviously) but my thoughts could have changed.

I think the one mistake I made there was to refer to Newman in the first place. In the end it became more a discussion on him than the point I was trying to make. Although his quote led me to the point I was rather referring to.

I haven’t been on the forum that much in the past year or two, and missed this interesting discussion. I have a couple of things I’d like to add to it if you still care about the topic. But perhaps I should do so in a separate thread (this is, I think, preferred by the moderators, rather than reviving old threads).

I have general things to say about Newman and the basic question you asked, but I also have a lot of problems with the way you use the Council of Orange. If you still think that the Council of Orange presents a Protestant soteriology and is in conflict with Catholic teaching, then I’ll start a new thread and explain why I think that isn’t so.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” Why don’t more Protestant historians become Catholic?

This was a very interesting thing when I saw the apologist question and answer. It was in fact a very interesting thing. Let me explain quickly.

I grew up Protestant never really thinking about much or even Catholicism. Until I met my fiancee who was a very Polish Catholic. She was doing her bachelors in History and I love history. So obviously we got into it very deep. Long story short, today, 2 years later she is very Protestant and I can after going so deep into history, say, because of History, I can’t see myself becoming Catholic any time soon.

Can some people tell me maybe how history taught them otherwise. And please, we all know the basics, I mean in depth history that makes sense. I am not here to accuse anyone, I would just like to know some understandings.

The more history I read, the more implausible (to me at least) is the Catholic interpretation of history, particularly the history of the Church.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The more history I read, the more implausible (to me at least) is the Catholic interpretation of history, particularly the history of the Church.

Greetings,

So the protestant interpretation is the correct one?

And which one protestant version would that be?

 

[MichaelP3]

Greetings,

So the protestant interpretation is the correct one?

And which one protestant version would that be?

I have heard people ask this (including you I think) but I do feel that is taking it away from the point.

Protestants (as far as I know) do not claim anything that needs some sense of “debatable” history to prove. 90% of Catholic teaching can or cannot be true and would make no difference for a Protestant. For a Catholic every single miniscule thing HAS to be in place for the logic to make sense.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I have heard people ask this (including you I think) but I do feel that is taking it away from the point.

Protestants (as far as I know) do not claim anything that needs some sense of “debatable” history to prove. 90% of Catholic teaching can or cannot be true and would make no difference for a Protestant. For a Catholic every single miniscule thing HAS to be in place for the logic to make sense.

Yes, from a protestant perspective, the Catholic Church looks like this complex institution with a ton of dots that need to connect in order to make sense of it from a SS state of mind.

Looking at it from a Catholic perspective, however…

I think if the Papacy and Church authority are legitimate…meaning that Matt 16:16-19 is the historical event she says it is and that Jesus actually established it and the Church has ***actual ***keys, then everything else falls perfectly into place. Because no Church teaching is anti-biblical when properly understood through the eyes of the Church. Maybe not found explicitly in the scriptures, but not opposed to them.

In regards to Church history, while protestants can pull a quote here or there that appears to favor them on the surface, as a overall body of work, the writings of the Patristic Fathers are simply not in their favor, IMO. Especially when we are talking about the fundamentalist branch of Christianity.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yes, from a protestant perspective, the Catholic Church looks like this complex institution with a ton of dots that need to connect in order to make sense of it from a SS state of mind.

Looking at it from a Catholic perspective, however…

I think if the Papacy and Church authority are legitimate…meaning that Matt 16:16-19 is the historical event she says it is and that Jesus actually established it and the Church has ***actual ***keys, then everything else falls perfectly into place. Because no Church teaching is anti-biblical when properly understood through the eyes of the Church. Maybe not found explicitly in the scriptures, but not opposed to them.

In regards to Church history, while protestants can pull a quote here or there that appears to favor them on the surface, as a overall body of work, the writings of the Patristic Fathers are simply not in their favor, IMO. Especially when we are talking about the fundamentalist branch of Christianity.

On most parts I’ll agree. But for the ones I don’t it would mean Protestants need a Father’s quote to prove anything. Nothing essentials to a Protestant needs such a history or proof. Everything essential to a Protestant is also essential to a Catholic. But not the other way.

So for instance quoting Clement of Rome as a Catholic to make a certain point. But then Clement in his epistle to Corinthians chapter 31 or 32 said something very protestant would be all I need in my mind to question the first quote used against me. Maybe Im going a bit of here. But as a mentioned previously. Its not the need for us to find any favour to us. The favour to us would be the favour to Catholics as well. It’s the “what we deem extras” that is put into question.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

On most parts I’ll agree. But for the ones I don’t it would mean Protestants need a Father’s quote to prove anything. Nothing essentials to a Protestant needs such a history or proof. Everything essential to a Protestant is also essential to a Catholic. But not the other way.

So for instance quoting Clement of Rome as a Catholic to make a certain point. But then Clement in his epistle to Corinthians chapter 31 or 32 said something very protestant would be all I need in my mind to question the first quote used against me. Maybe Im going a bit of here. But as a mentioned previously. Its not the need for us to find any favour to us. The favour to us would be the favour to Catholics as well. It’s the “what we deem extras” that is put into question.

Sure but any “extras” cease to be problematic if Matt 16:16-19. Is the historical event that the apostolic church claims it to be.

All about those keys do they exist and if so, who has them